RobertLynn wrote:
If the 1dx has higher iq per pixel, then it will more than likely interpolate better, and look better, and if you can't get by in the studio with 18mp out of a top end camera, 21 ain't helping you
Agree with the last one, but not the first, unless you are talking about high ISO.
Whatever Canon USA marketing might say now on that AF limit, it doesn't sounds plausible to me on at least two counts:
* Increased light and contrast sensitivity of 1DX AF points should actually allow AF at smaller apertures than before, for example like having all f/2.8 AF points active at f/8, not just the center AF point like in the older 1D models.
* Canon Japan has been emphasing improved performance with MkIII TCs on MKII telephoto lenses in all of their literature, to the point of making it a strong MkII supertelephoto lens selling feature. Therefore, why would the new pro camera those very lenses and TCs will be used with, somehow cause a step backwards with the TC use/application ?
john_edwards wrote:
Did I calculate 10 stops of ISO correctly?
ISO runs from ISO 100 to ISO 51200 in "normal" + two levels of expansion: 102400 (limit of the 1D Mark IV) and 204800 (new and shiny!). That's 10 stops in normal and 12 stops including the expansions.
Finally, I can sell my 1DIV and 1DsIII and just use a single body. The price point at $6500-7500 is a good one for me considering I can replace two bodies with one and use either a 5DII or a 7D as a backup. As long as the video specs are good with current video capabilities I'm sold. A $10k price would be too much and don't think it will be that high until it is able to support medium format resolutions. Now we just have to wait for inventory (and the first batch of inevitable firmware updates and engineering fixes)
Sp12 wrote:
Yes I have pet features, the reality is that they are features required to keep up with the competition. That's not the issue here. This body is a failure from market research's side. They've failed to make an upgrade for either the 1D or 1Ds series, and the body is basically misdirected in filling the market it was designed for.
It has lower pixel density than the 1DIV, combined with no AF capabilities at F/8, making it a much worse choice for BiF/Sports than the current 1DIV despite the AF and FPS improvements.
Lower megapixel count than current 1Ds, requiring significant improvement in per-pixel sharpness and performance to match current 1Ds in image usability, and still missing the 2008 mark set by the D3x and Sony A900, let alone that set by any future Sony sensors.
Obviously this was designed to be a match to the D700 as a high end wedding/PJ body (an area it is much too large for), but by doing so they've missed the mark on their high-end studio full-frame, high-end sports, and video-centric body. I eagerly await the 40MP+ 1DsX, ~28MP 1D sports replacement, video-optimized 5DIII, and compact mirrorless FF announcements....Show more →
I think that what you wrote above is a pretty fair and accurate assessment.
As I said in a previous post in one of these threads, if someone is currently using a 1Ds Mark II or a 1D Mark III or other older camera, the 1D X would appear to be an excellent upgrade to a camera that can do all things reasonably well.
However, for those who currently use a 1Ds Mark III and whose priority is maximum resolution, a move to a 1D X would be more of a lateral move than a move upward in, at least, image quality. For those currently using a 1D Mark IV and whose priority is pixel density and the ability to maximize the effective reach of their lenses, a move to the 1D X is several steps backward, both because of the lower pixel density associated with moving from a 1.3 crop to FF and because of the inability to AF at f8.
If Canon truly had an interest in building a consolidated 1-series camera that could do it all better than any of its previous bodies, they would have made a 30 mp FF body with a high speed 18 mp 1.3 crop mode. Instead, they have chosen to build a body that should be able to do all things reasonably well, but that can't do any of those things at the very highest levels possible.
PetKal wrote:
Whatever Canon USA marketing might say now on that AF limit, it doesn't sounds plausible to me on at least two counts:
* Increased light and contrast sensitivity of 1DX AF points should actually allow AF at lower apertures, such as having all f/2.8 AF points active at f/8, not just the center AF point like in the older 1D models.
* Canon Japan has been emphasing improved performance with MkIII TCs on MKII telephoto lenses in all of their literature, to the point of making it a strong MkII supertelephoto lens selling feature. Therefore, why would the new pro camera those very lenses and TCs will be used with, somehow cause a step backwards with the TC use/application ?...Show more →
Neither of those points are necessarily true.
F/2.8 points won't work at f/8 because the incident angle of the light will likely be insufficient at f/8 to get a reasonable level of accuracy. It's as much about the geometry as it is the quantity of light. In addition, making sensors f/8 sensitive IIUC makes them less accurate at wider apertures, so the tradeoff is that you get potentially worse af with the faster lenses.
According to what Canon stated, it's a step forward in a lot of ways. There are now a bunch of f/4 and f5.6 cross points, so you get cross point AF with lenses and TC combinations you wouldn't be able to do so with currently - 600 f/4 gets cross point coverage across a lot of the frame alone and with the 1.4 TC, the 800 gets it, the 300 and 400 get more cross points. If you' were using the 800 with a 1.4x or a 600 with a 2x, you're worse off, true. The guess is that Canon considers that sufficiently niche that the tradeoff is worth it. Obviously if you use those combinations that change will be very frustrating.
alundeb wrote:
Agree with the last one, but not the first, unless you are talking about high ISO.
Mayeb I worded it incorrectly.
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?
It's funny, not too long ago I've read some of the same people who are saying that the 1DX doesn't have enough MP, say that the 7D's IQ even with 8more MP, wasn't better than the 1D3...funny how it works both wasy.
No articulated screen...hmm.
I wonder if this was a decision as misplaced as "...a pro body does not need onboard flash".
Especially for video and studio work on a tripod!
ausemmao wrote:
F/2.8 points won't work at f/8 because the incident angle of the light will likely be insufficient at f/8 to get a reasonable level of accuracy. It's as much about the geometry as it is the quantity of light. In addition, making sensors f/8 sensitive IIUC makes them less accurate at wider apertures, so the tradeoff is that you get potentially worse af with the faster lenses.
The AF sensors now work in 1 stop lower light levels (p.4 of this Using a single central AF point with an f/2.8 lens, the EOS-1D Mark IV could focus in light levels of EV -1. However, the EOS-1D X is able to focus in EV -2, which is the equivalent of shooting under the light of the full moon.
RobertLynn wrote:
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?
I thought we spoke about resolution, not overall IQ, my fault. At higher ISO, lower noise gives effictively more detail, but at low ISO, lower noise just makes the silky smooth bokeh just a tad bit silkier...
RobertLynn wrote:
If the 1dx has higher iq per pixel, then it will more than likely interpolate better, and look better, and if you can't get by in the studio with 18mp out of a top end camera, 21 ain't helping you
alundeb wrote:
Agree with the last one, but not the first, unless you are talking about high ISO.
RobertLynn wrote:
Mayeb I worded it incorrectly.
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?
It's funny, not too long ago I've read some of the same people who are saying that the 1DX doesn't have enough MP, say that the 7D's IQ even with 8more MP, wasn't better than the 1D3...funny how it works both wasy.
+1
Some people are very strangely fixated on the 18 MP spec, as if this camera is going to be shit because it has a whopping 3 MP less resolution; yet no 100% crops have been posted. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here.
khphotography wrote:
It's a real simple answer. When Sony ups the ante and wants to take on both Canon and Nikon they will tell Nikon to screw off on make their own stuff. Which will leave them sitting high and dry.
You think Sony wants to sit around 12-15% in the DSLR market. No, they want 40%+.
Sony will never enter this pro market and even if they did it would take them more than a decade to build up the brand name and deliver the glass needed. They will dick around in the APS-C market and spend more and more resources on the NEX class cameras IMO.
AJSJones wrote:
The AF sensors now work in 1 stop lower light levels (p.4 of this
Working in lower light levels is not quite the same thing as working with narrower aperture lenses. Lower light levels mess with the quantity of light the sensor has to work with. Narrower aperture size messes with the geometry of the incoming light as well as the light level.
wickerprints wrote:
Some people are very strangely fixated on the 18 MP spec, as if this camera is going to be shit because it has a whopping 3 MP less resolution; yet no 100% crops have been posted. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here.
It's not just the lower megapixellage. Even with the better DR and ISO performance (which I very much expect to see), you are in studio conditions (not ISO or DR limited) producing lower resolution files than the 1DsIII. Even in real conditions where the two might be equal in terms of IQ (landscapes with large DR), it is still behind the 2008 D3x and A900 in IQ (barring massive leaps of 3+ stops DR over current Canon and color accuracy better than Sony). This is pretending that Sony releases nothing new in the next 5 months despite the recent discontinuation of their full-frames in preparation of their new SLT full-frames.
Instead of leaping beyond the 1DsIII, A900, and D3x by bringing even further gains in MF-competitive 35mm imagery, this body is somewhere between worse and marginally better than the 1DsIII despite roughly 3 years wait.
alundeb wrote:
I thought we spoke about resolution, not overall IQ, my fault. At higher ISO, lower noise gives effictively more detail, but at low ISO, lower noise just makes the silky smooth bokeh just a tad bit silkier...
Resolution as well. If each pixel has more detail in it, than the 1Dsmk3, there's a good chance that the IQ is better, even at that interpolated level.
* Same lens/TC combo , same geometry of light impingement:
-1DMkIV allows center point AF at f/8.
-1DX with more sensitive AF points doesn't allow AF at f/8.
Using any additional AF points is less relevant to this. I could have also suggested that they might have lowered the single point AF to f/11 in 1DX.
That sure sounds like an oddity to me.
* Canon probably knows very well that TC use which pushes nominal aperture to f/8 is relatively common, not sporadic at all.
khphotography wrote:
The fact a good memory card can read/write at 90 mb/s should give you an idea of the wall they are hitting. Camera will shoot at an effective rate close to 300 mb/s. So even if they wanted to push it even faster they would need a crazy sized buffer just to make that realistic.
What I'd like to see is them letting us use that ethernet connectivity to connect to external hard drives that could let us max that out closer to 18 to 20 frames per second.
The only limiter I can see is the buffer. I don't see why it isn't realistic to let us shoot faster if we have the means of not having that buffer....Show more →
The limiting factor is the speed the mirror can move. This is a FF mirror and has more inertia than for the APS-H 1D IV, but they've managed to get 12fps. You get 14fps with the mirror locked up. It doesn't matter how fast they can read the data, they face mechanical limitations.
RobertLynn wrote:
Resolution as well. If each pixel has more detail in it, than the 1Dsmk3, there's a good chance that the IQ is better, even at that interpolated level.
Are you talking about a weaker AA filter or lower noise? There is no way it is possible to experience more detail than from a 1Dsmk3 based on lower noise alone, at ISO 100. The noise at ISO 100 just Does Not limit the resolution of the 1DsIII.
1. It will have an electronic first curtain shutter (like the 5D2 does, the 1D4 does not).
2. It will have the same kind of translucent LCD overlay in the viewfinder like the 7D does
3. "By way of example, he says that an ISO 51,200 photo from the EOS-1D X shows roughly equivalent noise levels to an ISO 12,800 photo taken with the EOS-1D Mark IV." Where the 'he' is Chuck Westfall
4. AF sensitivity extended down to -2 EV (it was -1 EV for the 1D3, 1Ds3, 1D4)
1) This has been available since 40D, but never in 1 series
2) But supports interchangeable screens, so why not for the 7D
4) Now -2 to 19 EV, so +1 one at the bright end as well.
